5% or $250,000?
Take a look at this chart:
So, Obama says that he’s only going to increase taxes on those folks earning over $250,000 per year. He also says that he’s only going to raise taxes on the top 5% of income earners. You only have to make $152,048 to be in the top 5%. Which is it? Is Obama only going to increase taxes on those making $250,000 or on anyone making over $152,048?
SWEET!
I get to work less next year! YEA!!!!!
Being a sole proprietor I am actually on pace to do about 153 this year, with 2 trucks.
Looks like I’ll be selling one and putting a driver on the unemployment line!
Thanks OBAMA!
And yet I’ll be painted as an uncaring business owner who doesn’t care about the “little people”
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on October 18, 2008 at 2043 hrs
Owen, these are just “details”. Don’t concern yourself with them. Nothing to see here, just move along…...
Just get ready to share the wealth…...people can certainly keep their standard of living the same even with higher taxes if they just stop giving charitable contributions and keep the money for themselves like Joe Biden does.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 18, 2008 at 2111 hrs
OMG! The world is coming to an end! How will people be able to survive if we implement the tax code of the 90’s?!?!? I mean there is absolutely no incentive to make a dime over $250,000 if I have to pay 39% federal income tax on those additional dollars. None, what-so-ever. I’ll make an extra $50,000 a year if can bring home $25,000 after fed and state income taxes, but I won’t do it if it will only net me $23,500. No sir. I will put my foot down.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 18, 2008 at 2128 hrs
You miss the point, lefty… either Obama is lying or just doesn’t have his rhetoric in sync.
Posted by Owen on October 18, 2008 at 2141 hrs
Actually his rhetoric is in sync.
Straight from the Obama website…go to issues/taxes to see for yourself. (These two points are not in this order).
Obama’s Comprehensive Tax Policy Plan for America will:
Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.
Under the Obama Plan:Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.
The $250,000 number has been muddled with the 95% number, and it is understandable as to why since he puts the talking points back to back so much. But I have heard him explain this, he actually goes into this detail with Joe the Plumber if you watch the full clip, and he repeats it often. He is offering a tax plan that will result in a tax cut for 95% of the country, and no one making $250,000 or less will see a tax increase.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 18, 2008 at 2153 hrs
One other thing. I think Obama has been careful not to say he is going to raise taxes on 5% of the country, mostly because he has avoided saying he would raise taxes on anyone. He has been very specific to say he would cut taxes for 95% and not raise them on anyone making $250,000 or less. It is a function of our interpretation that has led to the 5% number being bandied about. I know I have done it in arguments I’ve made here. But it is an incorrect assumption on our part, and our mistake can’t get hung on Obama.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 18, 2008 at 2212 hrs
I just saw a clip with Joe the Plumber on McLaughlin group, and he talks about a “slippery slope” and how today it’s $250,000 (who is considered wealthy), maybe in the future it’s $150,000. I think Joe the Plumber has a pretty good understanding of economics - the floor for the “top 5%” could become lower than what it is today.
In New York, because of the financial meltdown, they are anticipating decreased tax revenues of epic proportions.
http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/8847
The recent upheaval on Wall Street could cost New York State up to $3.5 billion in tax revenues by March 2010, according to a preliminary estimate issued today by DiNapoli.
“The preliminary September numbers show the fallout from the Wall Street crisis is starting to hit the state hard,” DiNapoli said. “The volatility in the markets is creating difficulty in predicting budget revenues, and today’s vote in Washington will only increase that volatility. But this is a warning bell. The state has to watch its spending. Every dime counts in a crisis.”
While earlier projections put job losses in the securities industry at 25,000, DiNapoli’s review estimates the number of jobs lost could be as high as 40,000. Total job loss is difficult to project at this time, but each job lost on Wall Street could result in as many as three jobs lost elsewhere, driving the losses considerably higher, with most of the job loss concentrated in New York City. DiNapoli said this year’s reduction in Wall Street bonuses could rival the 50 percent decline incurred after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. A 50 percent decrease would reduce bonuses to the 2003 level of approximately $16 billion.I guess I would like to have Obama explain that if the top wage earners have less wealth for him to spread around, how he will “deliver” what he is promising. Seems like New York is anticipating less tax revenue from the wealthy. And it seems like Joe the Plumber understands that too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 18, 2008 at 2214 hrs
I would argue Joe the Plumber’s economic chops. I don’t want to come down on the guy, because as I said yesterday I think he asked an honest question that deserved real consideration. And before it got turned into a sound byte it was a good discussion between a candidate and someone who held an forthright disagreement with that candidate over a policy issue. It was also a good argument for the type of interaction the town hall presidential debate should have had.
That said, I get the distinct impression that Joe is mixing the gross revenue of the plumbing business he is interested in purchasing with the net income he would derive from his business. For Joe to come out of that business clearing $250,000 would mean he is looking at buying a pretty substantial business, a business that seems a bit beyond what his loan eligibility would cover based on his own characterizations of his current personal income and wealth.
Maybe I’m wrong, and have read more into his statements about his current earnings and assets than I should. But he seems to be living a much more modest life than that of someone who is about to make a play for a plumbing business of that size.
Before I get hammered for partisan hackery on that, I would love to hear from other small business owners on here who could tell me different. I’m going off the size of my wife’s business from when she started it, what it is worth today, and whether she would’ve been able to buy it as opposed to having to build it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 18, 2008 at 2226 hrs
So, is Obama going to give tax credits or cut my taxes before or after the Dem’s roll back the income tax reductions that Bush got through?
My bet The dem’s will increase our taxes when Bush’s tax cuts expire and then make excuses why they can’t give us the tax credits.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 19, 2008 at 0219 hrs
What’s the problem with the tax code of the 1990’s, Lefty? This: the federal government was the primary beneficiary of the bubble began in the 1990’s. When the fed began a loose monetary policy to encourage “growth” the federal government ignored fiscal policy and simply taxed the bubble without attempting to check spending, apolicy it has maintained since.
Now we have the current state of affairs. There is no longer any bubble to tax, and the fed is the position of flooding the economy with money in a vain attempt to prove there is no bubble. The federal government is quickly going to see reduced revenues do to the actual recession and bursting of the bubble that does in fact exist. The proper thing to do is for the government to massively cut spending. The likely thing for it to do is try to raise taxes and borrow more money. Raising taxes and borrowing is inflation causing; it decreases ouput and increases the money supply. Combined with the fed policy it means we are likely to see a great devaluation of the currency, and a return to the 1970’s if we are lucky, worse if we are not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 19, 2008 at 0904 hrs
To paraphrase Obama, “If they deflate federal spending, you could get as much wealth as I expect to get off of “drilling” the top 5%”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 19, 2008 at 0905 hrs
Dan, you are making over $250,000? I thought you were at $30,000?
Congrats my man!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 19, 2008 at 0922 hrs
Six in one, half dozen in the other. It doesn’t really matter. What matters, and what the message should be, is that Obama is going to decided how much success is “too much”, rather than allow individuals to make that decision.
So when he says he doesn’t want to “punish success”, as he did to Joe the Plumber, that’s partially true. He doesn’t wish to punish success, but he certainly wishes to be The One who decides when a person’s success is excessive.
In the end, no one - including the people behind me - will be successful, at least not in a Obama Administration.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 19, 2008 at 1224 hrs
Six in one, half dozen in the other. It doesn’t really matter. What matters, and what the message should be, is that Obama is going to decided how much success is “too much”, rather than allow individuals to make that decision.
I agree
Where the lines fall is all up for grabs. When you have a the philosophy like B.O. does, I wouldn’t be suprised if he gets in office and pulls a Jim Doyle…
“well, now that I’ve seen all the numbers things are worse than I thought” (blame the previous administration) and suddenly call for a tax package that taxes many more than he said he would.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 19, 2008 at 2045 hrs
Where the lines fall is all up for grabs. When you have a the philosophy like B.O. does, I wouldn’t be suprised if he gets in office and pulls a Jim Doyle…
“well, now that I’ve seen all the numbers things are worse than I thought” (blame the previous administration) and suddenly call for a tax package that taxes many more than he said he would.
XX, You mean that there some people stupid enough to believe that is not a given under Obama or McCain?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 20, 2008 at 1024 hrs
XX, You mean that there some people stupid enough to believe that is not a given under Obama or McCain?
Well, between a guy who brags about raising taxes on people and a guy who says he won’t. I’d have to believe the odds are better that the guy who says he won’t raise taxes would try harder not to do so than the guy who brags about raising them.
Neither will get my vote, but as a matter of debate, would I rather get screwed or raped… I’ll take screwed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 20, 2008 at 1115 hrs
xxpilot - at least you aren’t going to be like the guy in the ad laying in bed after a one-night stand, & sees the long haired, leggy person at the toilet peeing standing up. After the election, I think a lot of people are going to wake up to the with the feeling that they just got blown by a transvestite.
Then again, Chris Matthews of MSNBC did say this:
I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 20, 2008 at 1150 hrs
but as a matter of debate, would I rather get screwed or raped…
Except you really don’t have any choice except in how you want to perceive it.
Even Barr is not going to be able to change that.
Which part of “the money is already being spent and now we have to figure out how to pay for it” do you guys not understand?
You mean that there some people stupid enough to believe that is not a given under Obama or McCain?
Tuerquas is exactly right.
If taxes are your issue in this election you might as well do a coin toss.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 20, 2008 at 1237 hrs
One thing you don’t understand Lefty: It’s not the government’s money….it’s not Obama’s money. It belongs to the person who EARNED it!
What a concept!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 20, 2008 at 1303 hrs
#19 It belongs to the person who EARNED it!
Right on! We patriots pay taxes because we know we need the gov’t for certain things but we don’t expect them to rob us blind. If they are so concerned about poor people why don’t say, community organizers, get together and help people to learn the skills necessary to compete in this world. Things like; the skills to get and keep a better paying job, good spending habits, how to save for retirement or a down payment on a house. There are all kinds and types of great ideas to get people on their feet but giving money is the worst idea of all because unless their thinking changes these same people will be just as poor and just as badly off as they were before they received the money. If my very hard earned dollars must go to those less well off than me then I think I should have a say in how that money is used. I vociferously protest simply transferring wealth around just to make people like Nancy Pelosi feel better. By the way, anyone who wishes may pay more in taxes. Let those of you who believe in giving be the first to get in the Pay More Taxes line.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 20, 2008 at 1525 hrs
Whoa, I can’t believe my fingers are typing this, but I would rather have a liberal at heart than a just liberal spender, spend my money.
Not that I ever had any real intention of voting for either of them, but I would rather be screwed than raped, too. To me that points to Obama. You know that, whatever comes out of their mouths, taxes/fees will increase a lot under liberal guidance. You know neither of them are going to cut an ounce of spending, but spending heavily at a deficit while your economy is shrinking just exacerbates the growing problem.(Thank you pjr, it gives me hope that you know this, yet still support Obama. It seems that too many people heartily believe that Obama could lower taxes on 95% of the people, yet still pay all his debts and new promises, plus reduce deficit spending in a shrinking economy. Open eyed support encourages me)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 20, 2008 at 1534 hrs
it gives me hope that you know this, yet still support Obama.
Tuerq, that’s quite an assumption.
How did you get there?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 21, 2008 at 0952 hrs
I was thinking of other discussions and I may have my initials mixed up with apc, sorry. I can only do this occasionally because I only have the internet at work. (I know, I know) Who do you support? Or if not support, who will you vote for?
I haven’t been able to vote for a major party candidate very often and neither of these candidates provide anything for me. I have always voted (with one exception) Libertarian mainly in the hopes of getting a third voice to be recognized some day. i do not agree with some of the party platform, but I am more in sync there than anywhere else.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 0714 hrs
I am currently leaning towards Barr for the reason you listed and a total lack of fiscal conservatism from either major candidate.
And there is this;
Taxes are not my issue other than I think the tax structure should be equitable. I think a flat tax with no avenues for avoidance would accomplish that.
If the govt keeps this bailout, backstop, stimulus crap up, we are going to end up with a revaluation of the dollar that is going to cripple us for decades to come. I just love the current acronym, TARP. Isn’t that used to cover(up) something?
I think we need to start to learn to keep our noses out of other people’s business on an individual, national and global level and start to have some rational discussions about what is possible/probable versus pissing contests over some ideological pie in the sky.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 0910 hrs
I’m voting Barr as well.
Taxes are not my issue other than I think the tax structure should be equitable. I think a flat tax with no avenues for avoidance would accomplish that.
If the govt keeps this bailout, backstop, stimulus crap up, we are going to end up with a revaluation of the dollar that is going to cripple us for decades to come. I just love the current acronym, TARP. Isn’t that used to cover(up) something?
I think we need to start to learn to keep our noses out of other people’s business on an individual, national and global level and start to have some rational discussions about what is possible/probable versus pissing contests over some ideological pie in the sky.
I can agree with this as well.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 0928 hrs
Sorry I mixed the two of you, but in general I do respect both of your opinions (pjr and apc)whether I agree or not with the individual argument. His belief in Obama is what I was referring to. I personally think a global on down tightening of the belt is absolutely necessary and it is not going to come from this election so I find myself in perfect agreement with you here.
Since I believe Obama will be our next President I look for reasons to see the glass half full. I would gladly swallow the bitter pill of cynicism if Obama pulls our economy out of crisis, but I think his designs will harm more than help. It seems like most Obama supporters have their eyes firmly glued shut.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 0938 hrs
Libertarian mainly in the hopes of getting a third voice to be recognized some day.
Thats why I’m voting Barr. I do agree with all of the basic tennants of the libertarian platform.
I know Libertarians don’t have a prayer of winning any national races, but I hope that collecting a noticeable percentage of the vote will say to both parties that the ‘real’ swing vote exists amongst people who believe in freedom which neither current party can make a play for with their current policy and platform.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 1001 hrs
Total Entries: 19654
Total Comments: 129829
Most Recent Entry: 02/10/2012 02:32 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 12:30 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 108
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 01:49 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).